Brief:.nc note for B. B=a.-_!ev Zsc.
-zr TSRT, March 1989
APMX
Repeat tox_~coloqy tests on APEX are neede,-4, as
the initial tests gave
acverse results. The earliest the outside
laboratorv can ob,:a-4- ::=a
Off-:ze aporoval is the end of 19B9.
AP-_ has a better fillLng power than bot-h D:27
and G13 with Lower nicotine
and chemical losses than DIET (similar to G12.)
Typically I kS of DIET
or G13 saves between 0.65 kg to 0.75 kg of tobacco
blend, whereas I kg of
APM saves around I kg of tobacco bland. A2ZX &Lso
has lower nicotine and
chemical losses than DIET (similar to G13.) APEX
will have higher
operaz~~g coats however, estimated at 110o/kg
excluding depreciation
versus SOD/kg for DIET. (Direct variable costs axe
estimated at 75p/kg
for APEX versus 15p/kg for DIET from Corby.)
Clearly the potential
bem-efits will- depend on the price of tobacc:7,
existing expanded tobacco
faciLities and the size of oDerazion. It had been
estizated that around
10 BAT companies and associates could find s=e
financial benef_": from the
use of APEX, alt-hough this does not take account
of the write-off costs
for the DT_7T plant at Corby.
:f zox;coloc
y 'ieszs prove sat's-actory, the next stace would
be
puz=-ase a IOC kg per hc-,:r pilot plant instaLled
at ---by, at a:,. estimated
cost cf- E2.5 mr-Ilion, to prove ihe design anc
f----- scale 50C kq/hour plant would cost an
es,:imated E4.8 m~11licn and a
to reDlace DIZT f--= Corby (1600 kg/liz, would
cost ar. E3
to EIC millicn. :n view of the hig' expicsion risk
w-4--'- ----;s
pr-o-cess, we on-y envisaqe install-ing planms in
a few soph_'sz_zca-:__-_
c=-=:_-es Canada, Aus--ralia). Mea::-oihJle, as
vou know,
X,:stzalia are csnsider4-mc a C:27 =Ianz~ to -:z
G12.
do ~naz thev mav no-: be willing to -,rLte 4t of f
4n 4 or _5 years to
A.P!X.
77 ~e recent -.=,cress made -with --'-e low cost
hLgn velcctzy afr dz-:ez, wh4ch
s -e~ng ins-:alled &nc :eszec -4n Singapore,
=,,:--s t~ie ccz=.er=_4&L viability
of tne APEX process in dciiJoz. T`n~s type of
--yez g: .-ves nat,,Lral ex?ansior
anz~ reduces the recru-'re-rent for hig.n
expar-si:n products. 7heref=re the
pc~ential financial benefits of APEX aze
rg,~-.:c9c4 =-_ercial
a-=-cat4on st4':_ furthez.
7 he =a:or expend-4t-_-e on this pro4ect was on
_;ts basic -ab-cra.=r;
deve'o=ent and on an engineering study to assess
'Lne cost of a --ant and
I
,.he safety risks involved in the process. :n the
last two vears,
ex--endituze has been vir-=ally nil. This was
because of ouz, csncerrls over
the co=ezc-4a-' viability of the scheme and --'-e
period' of de-'av for
t--xicolocly testing.
Our propcsa-L -'-a that we should co=Lete the
'~oxicclogy test~_ng (cost
E90,000) so that we have that data read4ly
available should we wish to
rev4se the project but carr-i out no further
!evelopinent or -zilot mlant
work. In ahort, APIX should be shelved.
7'~- !~azc` 1989. C::
XIT":N'P'ZnT-%T(')13ACCOLITIGATIO~N.
BATCo document for Province of BritiSh Columbia 26
October 1999